Baliff petition;Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry;Peter Bard

[Spandavia]

Hi,

 

Re herbie's post above - ANSWERS ON A POST CARD:

 

I've been doing the sums for a while now and the really frightening thing is how many extra bailiffs will have to be employed? They'd need several thousand certificated bailiffs to effectively deal with the no. of warrants issued! I have this vision of an army of uniformed men in little white vans terrorising the country!

 

And here's an interesting scenario - let's say we have 3000 or so bailiffs (that's the figure I came up with for the 2006 warrants issued considering a bailiff might do 10 visits a day) and all of them have to go through various proceedures with the courts to enforce their business. The same courts that already have a back log of work - so they're really going to be pleased with this extra work load. Then the bailiffs will, in many cases be calling the police for assitance or the public will be calling the police for protection. And how happy are the police going to be to be called out hundreds of times a day re bailiffs? Anyway they won't be able to do anything because their hands will be tied - so will they even bother to turn up? Or will they make half hearted visits two or three hours after they've been called and after the damage is done?

 

Result? The safe guards that are apparently being put in place will work as well as the current ones i.e. they won't. But the difference this time is that the bailiffs will legally kick doors down and use physical force on people!

 

And all in England's green and pleasant land!!! Sorry, I know I'm stating the obvious here - just having a rant folks!!

 

Best

Span

[The Watcher]

But the difference this time is that the bailiffs will legally kick doors down and use physical force on people!

 

Not in this house they won't ! At least it would be very ill-advised.

I predict a backlash by the public within weeks (probably after some terrible disaster has happened).

[Guest Herbie]

Kenny,

 

I have no problem with you copying this info...I have included these figures in various letters myself many times.

[Peterbard]

Not in this house they won't ! At least it would be very ill-advised.

I predict a backlash by the public within weeks (probably after some terrible disaster has happened).

HI

 

So do i.

As i have pointed out in many of my letters the British public will not abide an unfair or unjust law. Remember the poll tax and what happened to the instigators of that fiasco.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

[The Watcher]

HI

 

So do i.

As i have pointed out in many of my letters the British public will not abide an unfair or unjust law. Remember the poll tax and what happened to the instigators of that fiasco.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

 

Yes, Peter

 

I can foresee either someone being seriously injured, or retaliating so heavily that a bailiff is injured (or worse).

 

Remember the overwhelming public support for Tony Martin after his case?

 

Bad law always backfires.

[davefirewalker]

I would like to see the fun around here where I live if a bailiff chances his luck on the wrong people. there are enough weapons to start a small war!! god help them !

 

Dave

[Guest Battleaxe]

I live on a semi military estate, mixed housing, civilian and defence personnel. At the main gate is a CCTV so any vehicle coming in has it's number plate registered at the guard house, everyone has the number to the main gate and the RAF Police. This could be very interesting if the Bailliffs arrive to do their job. I would love the dogs of war to hold them until the civil police arrive or even the RAF Police to arrest them. Interesting days ahead.

[Peterbard]

Hi

I recently recieved a letter from someone who i have a great deal of respect for but who is however in favour of the powers that will be given for baillifs enforceing a civil warrant to use force of entry.

I have not been ale to get hold of him to get permission to post his letter but here was my reply.

 

 

Thanks for the reply and i take your point about the situation prior 2004.

 

Although i agree with most of what you say I am afraid i cannot agree that forced entry for a civil debt can ever be justified.

 

Perhaps it is due to my personal experiences in the field, so to speak of the pointlessness of such an exercise and the distress i know it would cause in the majority of cases where the power would be used.

I think that the "shouldn’t be able to avoid a debt by closing the door," argument is flawed;

 

Firstly: because in my experience very few debts have ever been settled in this way.

 

Secondly: because people don’t live in a vacuum they need money coming in and out in order to survive and it is only the difference between the two that someone can be reasonably be expected to pay,

 

I find it hard to understand how breaking into someone’s home can alter that.

 

But more importantly i think that if we condone violence we have to be careful that our moral reasoning is sound. I do not think it is justifiable for the government to sanction violence on a rationale of revenge. They have taken my money so i will have their door broken in.

As I mentioned earlier the creditor rarely gains any financial recompense as the poor do not have the goods and the better off have taken steps to remove them long before the bailiff arrives.

I think if i am honest my basic objection is that I think that there are some principles that go even beyond the power of the courts, and one of them is the right to security in ones own home. It is unfortunately necessary to violate this when it is in the community’s interest to do so,

I find but i find it hard to justify however when the only rationale is satisfy the ire of the person who feels they have been financially short changed.

 

That being said as you say at the moment the important thing is to ensure that proper regulation of bailiffs’ is given priority not only because of the possible change to legislation but in order to stop the current abuses of the system that are taking place as we speak.

 

Before any change or increase in bailiff powers is considered there must be a change in public perception of the bailiff. Currently there is a common mistrust of them and their methods, this can only be addressed by implementing the new regulation and demonstrating that it works, before any further increase in powers of enforcement are even considered.

 

Best Regards

 

Peter

[The Watcher]

"shouldn’t be able to avoid a debt by closing the door,"

 

It's taken them 800 years to come to this conclusion?

 

Most people are better off now than at any time in history - and yet this principle has ALWAYS been adhered to.

 

What is it now that has changed the situation?

 

Another well thought out letter, Peter.

[maybelline]

wholeheartedly agree Peter, it smacks of revenge, your points are very clear, I will be very sad when we begin to see the fallout and people begin to suffer, I for one be defending myself if my door is broken down, and the moment someone lays on finger on me for access, I will defend myself.

[Didge]

Had a distressing bailiff visit a couple of years ago. Thing is, I had paid off the item they were collecting for six months before!

The thought that should a similar situation happen to myself (hopefully not now) or anyone else, that they could have just broken down my door and taken goods for something that I could not have proved I had paid for until the next day (as they had visited in the evening and couldn't contact the body until then) just beggars belief.

This just cannot happen.

[The Watcher]

But it WILL happen unless we get this bill stopped !

 

Only a couple of weeks ago in Yorkshire the police battered their way into a pensioners house (on a supposed drug raid) until they realised that they had the wrong address!

 

If the police cannot get it right - then I'm sure that bailiffs (who often have a financial incentive to "get it wrong") will be doing this kind of thing regularly.

 

Bring it up with your prospective Cuncillor (for the May elections) - I bet they too are amazed to find out what is happening. The more publicity we can get the better.

[kennyh]

Hi folks,

Have just emailed details of this campaign to EVERYONE I know (quite a list including some in legals and many in finance) as well as candidates for the local elections. One female LibDem has already 'come back' in total disbelief and I've assured her that we're not b**********g her. Now going after those listed at #349 by Peter B;

I TRUST YOU'LL ALL JOIN ME - else I might have to 'send in the boys' - know wot I mean (get used to it).

[The Watcher]

Anyone in Derbyshire?

 

Let the prospective Labour candidate for the County Council elections know what you think of this Bill !

 

[email protected]

[The Watcher]

Just received the following letter from Paul Holmes MP, Chairman of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party -

 

Dear ....

 

Thank you for your letter of 2nd April 2007 expressing your concerns about Section 3 of the Ttibunals and Enforcement Bill.

 

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are broadly supportive of the tribunals proposals (creating a unified tribunals syatem), and Courts proposals (wider pool of people to form the Judiciary, such as academics, lawyers and potentially non-lawyers, as well as solicitors and barristers). However, we share your concerns and we will ensure these issues will be considered as the Bill progresses. These include -

 

- appeal to Upper Tier of Tribunal is allowed on a point of law only, not a point of fact;

 

- legal aid should be available for cases before tribunals;

 

- there should be full regulation of bailiffs in the Bill;

 

- there should be proper safeguards in the Bill in relation to looted works of art.

 

I have forwarded your comments to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer. I will continue to keep you informed on the progress of the Bill. In the meantime, should you wish to discuss this further or indeed any other issue please do not hesitate to get in touch.

 

yours truly

 

 

 

Paul Holmes MP

Chairman of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party

[Peterbard]

Geat work Kenny And Watcher as usual

 

I am trying to get an update on various things that are going on and will post as soon as i have it .

 

Best regards

 

Peter

[kennyh]

hi there Watcher,

Do you know whether "full regulation of bailiffs " means controlling their means of access and restraint?

ken

[The Watcher]

I think Peter would be better to answer that one Kenny, as he has been keeping a much closer eye on Parliamentary discussions.

 

I think it would be a partial victory if a full regulation WERE in place prior to any further powers being given to bailiffs - but it's not a lost cause as the more we publicize this the more people will be aware.

[kennyh]

Pete,

If you can stop pedalling long enough any thoughts on the above at #365?

[davefirewalker]

Just got a reply from David Ilic after writing to Baroness Ashton.....Just a load of crap saying they were updating outdated laws. He specifically mentioned that it used to be unlawfull to break a lock to enter a property, "..... but as the poor didnt have or couldnt afford locks it didnt protect them "

 

As if this makes it ok.....the mind boggles

 

Can post it if anyone wants to view it

 

Dave

[The Watcher]

No one seems willing / able to answer why this law needs "updating" NOW? It has operated very effectively for 800 years - what has suddenly changed?

 

Just had my first local election leaflet delivered today - they all have contact details for your local prospective Councillors etc.

 

As bailiffs are generally working for Council Tax or parking fines - both of which are local issues - I think that is the best route. If we generate enough publicity not only will it make people aware (and get them to campaign too) but the local parties will "feed" the diquiet back to their leaders.

 

Just sent an e mail to the local Labour Party, headed - An Englishman's Home USED to be his Castle - UNTIL the Labour Party came along !

 

The message goes on to say "Your Rights are being removed (in secret) after 800 years - by B-Liar's Labour Party". (No harm in playing on the fact that no one trusts / believes Blair any more. Something which I'm sure they are very sensitive about!).

 

It includes a link to this site so they will be well aware of the groundswell of opinion.

 

I bet that if they feel this info is being sent to their prospective constituents, they will act (or at least panic) !

 

(Funnily enough - the Labour leaflet has the strap-line "Labour - on YOUR side" !)

[kennyh]

Watcher,

Being overly immersed now in so much activity (what with bailiffs, Bank charges and Mortgage ERCs) do you have a straight copy of your email that I could 'lift'?

Ken

[The Watcher]

Watcher,

Being overly immersed now in so much activity (what with bailiffs, Bank charges and Mortgage ERCs) do you have a straight copy of your email that I could 'lift'?

Ken

 

Certainly. The next few weeks will be a golden opportunity to get the message across. The Labour Party will wince at the thought of this info getting out and the other parties may well use it as a "tool" against them. Whatever happens, we will get the publicity we need.

 

Over the next few weeks we will be deluged by election leaflets asking for our opinion - let's tell them !

 

Dear

 

An Englishman's Home USED to be his Castle - UNTIL the Labour Party came along !

 

Tribunals and Enforcement Bill 2007

 

I wanted to bring this Bill to your attention - particularly Section 3, which removes centuries old Common Law, with regard to the rights of citizens to refuse access to bailiffs. Under this new Bill bailiffs will have the right to force entry.

 

The Labour Party removed certain rights of entry in 2004, and now plans to remove the remaining rights - without the public even being aware.

 

Given that the Citizens Advice Bureau has a catalogue of complaints against bailiffs already, and that despite promises a satisfactory regulatory system is still not in place (and will not be until after the new Bill becomes law) I'd like to know your thoughts on this matter.

 

(I'd paricularly like you to read the excellent statement made in the House of Commons by the member for Great Grimsby, Mr Austin Mitchell, concerning his own experience with bailiffs).

 

If you need more information on the groundswell of opinion building against this Bill - which could become Labour's Poll Tax - then please follow this link - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/61524-baliff-petition-stop-them.html

 

Our Rights (for over 800 years) are being removed (in secret) by B-Liar's Labour Party.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

[Spandavia]

Just got a reply from David Ilic after writing to Baroness Ashton.....Just a load of crap saying they were updating outdated laws. He specifically mentioned that it used to be unlawfull to break a lock to enter a property, "..... but as the poor didnt have or couldnt afford locks it didnt protect them "

 

As if this makes it ok.....the mind boggles

 

Can post it if anyone wants to view it

 

Dave

 

I would love to see the reply Dave.

 

Many thanks

 

Span

[elsinore]

Today's Daily Express!

 

Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: News / Showbiz :: Bailiff threat to your home

 

Els